NSF Proposal and Merit Review Process Outline Proposal

NSF Proposal and Merit Review Process

Outline • Proposal review process – Submission – Administrative Review – Merit Review – Decisions

Proposal Submission • How? – Via Fast. Lane (https: //www. fastlane. nsf. gov) or – Grants. gov (http: //www. grants. gov) • Who? – Universities and colleges – Non-profit, non-academic organizations – For-profit organizations – State and local governments – Independent Researchers

Proposal Submission (continued) • How are proposals solicited? (Note that most proposals are “unsolicited. ”) – Program Descriptions – Program Announcements – Dear Colleague Letters – Program Solicitations • What? – Basics of Proposal Types • When? – Target date, deadline and window

Proposals may be submitted in response to: • Program Description – broad, general descriptions of programs – usually the home for investigator-initiated “unsolicited” proposals • Program Announcement – similar to Program Descriptions • Dear Colleague Letter – provides general information to community, – clarifies or amends existing policy or document, or – informs community about upcoming opportunities or special competitions for supplements to existing awards

Proposals may be submitted in response to (continued): • Program Solicitation – encourages submission of proposals in specific program areas of interest to NSF – more focused; normally applies for limited period of time – may include • additional review criteria and reporting requirements, • budgetary and eligibility limits, • requirement for letters of intent or preproposals, etc.

Types of Proposal Submission • Letters of Intent – Only if needed by the program • Intent: to help NSF program staff to gauge size and range of competition • Contents: PI's and co-PI's names, proposed title, list of possible participating organizations, and synopsis • Not externally evaluated or used to decide on funding

Types of Proposal Submission (continued) • Preliminary Proposal – Only if needed by the program • Intent: to reduce unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and to increase the overall quality of full submission • Contents: based on the program • Review and decisions: merit review to aid decisions • Invite or Not invite • Encourage or Not encourage • Full Proposal – Typical submission to NSF

Proposal Submission - When? • Target dates – dates after which proposals are still accepted, but may miss a particular panel • Deadline dates – dates after which proposals will not be accepted for review • Submission windows – designated periods of time during which proposals are accepted for review • Accepted any time – After speaking with a Program Director – e. g. SGER (Small Grants for Exploratory Research), some conference/workshop proposals, supplements

Submission and afterwards • Plan ahead!! – Don’t wait until the last minute. – Don’t assume a time extension will be granted • Submission – Check before you submit • Print out from Fast. Lane to ensure pdf conversion is correct – Work with your Sponsored Projects Office • After submission – Acknowledgment and Fast. Lane proposal status page – Fast. Lane Proposal File Update module • Parts of a proposal may be replaced after submission • Don’t count on this, the word is may, not can.

NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline Returned Without Review/Withdrawn GPG Announcement Solicitation Organization submits via Fast. Lane Minimum of 3 Reviews Required N S F Mail NSF Program Officer Panel Both Award Program Officer Analysis & Recom. Research & Education Communities 90 Days Via DGA Division Director Concur Organization Decline Proposal Receipt at NSF Proposal Preparation Time DD Concur 6 Months Proposal Receipt to Division Director Concurrence of Program Officer Recommendation Award 30 Days DGA Review & Processing of Award

Administrative Review – Compliance Check ü Format, page limits, etc. ü Return without review – – – – – DOES NOT ADDRESS BOTH REVIEW CRITERIA IN PROJECT SUMMARY inappropriate for funding by NSF insufficient lead-time before the activity’s start received after announced proposal deadline date full proposal submitted when preliminary proposal "not invited" duplicate of, or substantially similar to, proposal already under consideration by NSF from same submitter does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements not responsive to GPG (Grant Proposal Guide) or program announcement/solicitation previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised duplicates another proposal already funded

Merit Review Two criteria: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

Intellectual merit: • How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? • How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? • To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? • Is there sufficient access to resources?

Broader impacts: • How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? • How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups? • To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? • Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? • What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? • http: //www. nsf. gov/pubs/2002/nsf 022/bicexamples. pdf

Merit Review • Mail Reviews – How program directors identify reviewers: • Reviewer suggestions by the PI • Program Director’s knowledge of what is being done and who’s doing what in the research area • References listed in proposal • Recent technical programs from professional societies • Recent authors in scientific and engineering journals – electronic databases • Reviewer recommendations

Merit review continued • Panel Reviews – Panelists identified by some of the same methods used for mail reviewers – Normally, at least three panelists provide written reviews – All are expected to contribute to the discussion of the proposal and its panel rating – Research directorates usually use large panels (e. g. , 15 to 25) where not all members write reviews while EHR usually uses smaller panels (5 to 8) where all members write reviews.

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest • Remove or limit influence of ties to an applicant institution or investigator that could affect reviewer advice • Preserve trust of scientific community, Congress, and general public in integrity, effectiveness, and evenhandedness of NSF’s merit review process • Types of COIs: – Affiliations with applicant institutions – Relationships with investigator or project director (personal and/or professional)

Basis for decisions: Reviews • Content of the review may be more important than the rating particularly in large panels. • Program Director analyzes reviews. • Fairness • Substance in the reviews • Technical problems raised in the reviews -- major vs. minor • Reasons for the reviewer concerns or enthusiasm

Basis for decisions: A balanced portfolio • Innovation and creativity – High risk - high reward projects • Breadth of research areas • Priority areas and emphases • Demographics and diversity • Broadening participation • Institutional impact- PUI, EPSCo. R, etc. • Integration of research & education • International collaborations

NSF on the web- An indispensable resource www. nsf. gov